Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

In the case of the latter, I'm certainly willing to debate the merits of any idea, and my experience here is that "the liberals" at GT are far better informed about politics than "the conservatives" at GT.

Dude, you're sounding more and more like unbreakable every day.

Eh - it's frustrating to spend a long time doing research to combat various inanities to find that the person who's ostensibly discussing those issues doesn't bother to read or consider any of the available evidence.

In the case of the latter, I'm certainly willing to debate the merits of any idea, and my experience here is that "the liberals" at GT are far better informed about politics than "the conservatives" at GT.

Dude, you're sounding more and more like unbreakable every day.

Eh - it's frustrating to spend a long time doing research to combat various inanities to find that the person who's ostensibly discussing those issues doesn't bother to read or consider any of the available evidence.

I will give you credit. All of your points are backed up with relevant articles and statistics. That is way more than I can say for some others.

I also find it funny that while the Conservatives try to mask their own odors by opening the windows and turning the fan on, the Liberals pretend their shit doesn't stink at all.

I honestly have no idea what you mean here - and whether you mean it generally about The World At Large, or specifically about people who post here on GT. In the case of the latter, I'm certainly willing to debate the merits of any idea, and my experience here is that "the liberals" at GT are far better informed about politics than "the conservatives" at GT. In the case of the former, I'm still bewildered by the assertion, so perhaps you could provide an instructive case study.

I figured someone'd respond that way - I just assumed it would be Cheeba.

I'm perfectly willing to concede the various stupidities inflicted by democrats. Obama's health care proposal, for example, which doesn't cover every uninsured American, pisses me off. Clinton's gas tax holiday was a pander, just like McCain's. William Jefferson is a crook and deserves to go to jail. Dennis Kucinich, bless his little elfin peace-lovin' heart, should not be allowed on television.

There's a million stupid things the Democrats do, things that are inefficient and ham-handed, and I'm willing to concede them all, because when it comes down to it, the fundamental belief of the democratic party is that government has a responsibility to help take care of Americans, whereas the republicans push this mantra of "personal responsibility" that makes discrimination and unemployment the problem of the individual, rather than society's.

Ultimately, which is the group that truly pretends their shit don't stink? I'd argue it's the "love it or leave it" crowd that refuse to acknowledge any valid criticisms of the status quo. Which is the party denying global warming? Which is the party that continually refuses to abide by the rule of law? Which is the party who impeached a president for "perjury", but blocks impeachment of a president who, I think most people can now acknowledges, misled the country into a trillion dollar war? Which party mocked the purple heart and military service of a senator and war hero?

And that is the root of the problem. I believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of being responsible for people except in those functions the framers set forth. Liberty and 'government having the responsibility to take care of people' don't mix. Because the government doesn't stop at taking care of people in bad situations...they by default open the umbrella over everyone and that encourages people to never better themselves. See: Jamestown Virginia.

Am I saying the government should never help out anyone? No. But my idea of helping out those that need it versus funneling many major areas of traditional responsibility through the government to manage is very different than yours.

Edit: And it's ok that we disagree on this. They were having the exact same argument 232 years ago.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.

The goal of the “liberals”—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the “conservatives” was only to retard that process.)" - Ayn Rand

I'm confused, did you add the Ayn Rand quote to solidify the tenacity of the Galbraith quote?

I'm not kidding. They got put into office based on what I see as an anti-war stance, and have done nothing to back that stance up with action. Weak, is what I call that. Pathetic, even.

Weak... pathetic... or exactly as they planned? It was said earlier, but it's worth noting that both parties lie right on top of each other in the full political spectrum. They'll throw out social issues like abortion and gay rights for the populace to bicker about and divide us, but when it comes to economic (read: "war") priorities they're all on the same page and the american public really has no say on those issues.

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

I'm by no means a fan boy of Rand and it's been two decades since I read any of her work but...

1) I think her question of authority and the right of the individual versus the will of the collective is just as valid in the 21st century as it ever has been.

2) I'm not sure that "what is the proper role of government" is her central political issue. That seems like an obfuscation. Every one who deals with governement examines "what is the proper role of government." IIRC, Rand tries build an epistimology that claims that rational self interest is the moral life and because of this politics should protect self interest.

3) My memory is that she failed pretty hard core. She was excelllent at building frameworks to deconstruct other political mechanisms based on epistomology but she could not construct framework that could withstand her own deconstruction.

At the same time, I think her philosophy is much more within the grasp of the ordinary reader. Philosophy: Who Needs it was an excellent read, for example, as long as you read it critically. Skip her fiction. It's terrible.

Quote from: wonton on June 16, 2008, 12:07:47 AM

I'm confused, did you add the Ayn Rand quote to solidify the tenacity of the Galbraith quote?

Rand would have said yes, and that his rejection of the selfish is Galbraith's exact problem. That this rejection of the selfish is the inherenct plaugue of modern liberalism. The except here is that she would arge that the rejection of the selfish has also infected conservatism as well. One might say have to amend this to say:

"The modern libertine is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

However, the conflict between capitalism and socialism has been largely settled for now. In terms of the 21st century, one of the central political issues (possibly the most important, now) is how can/should a government of the people deal with religious extremism and threats to it's citizens? A threat which has at its root, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I would also argue that the central political issue of our times is that of the individual vs the corporation and/or government. What does it mean to be a citizen, and who are governments beholden to, or should they be beholden to?

The Iraq war is not about socialism, but it could be construed to be about a war for capital resources. Is a government which is responsive to it's citizens an inherently socialistic government?

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

However, the conflict between capitalism and socialism has been largely settled for now. In terms of the 21st century, one of the central political issues (possibly the most important, now) is how can/should a government of the people deal with religious extremism and threats to it's citizens? A threat which has at its root, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I would also argue that the central political issue of our times is that of the individual vs the corporation and/or government. What does it mean to be a citizen, and who are governments beholden to, or should they be beholden to?

The Iraq war is not about socialism, but it could be construed to be about a war for capital resources. Is a government which is responsive to it's citizens an inherently socialistic government?

Yes, if the responses are socialistic in nature, welfare, nationalized health care and other other such things. Its what much of Europe is these days.

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

However, the conflict between capitalism and socialism has been largely settled for now. In terms of the 21st century, one of the central political issues (possibly the most important, now) is how can/should a government of the people deal with religious extremism and threats to it's citizens? A threat which has at its root, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I would also argue that the central political issue of our times is that of the individual vs the corporation and/or government. What does it mean to be a citizen, and who are governments beholden to, or should they be beholden to?

The Iraq war is not about socialism, but it could be construed to be about a war for capital resources. Is a government which is responsive to it's citizens an inherently socialistic government?

Yes, if the responses are socialistic in nature, welfare, nationalized health care and other other such things. Its what much of Europe is these days.

So, Government of the people, by the people and for the people is socialism?

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

However, the conflict between capitalism and socialism has been largely settled for now. In terms of the 21st century, one of the central political issues (possibly the most important, now) is how can/should a government of the people deal with religious extremism and threats to it's citizens? A threat which has at its root, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I would also argue that the central political issue of our times is that of the individual vs the corporation and/or government. What does it mean to be a citizen, and who are governments beholden to, or should they be beholden to?

The Iraq war is not about socialism, but it could be construed to be about a war for capital resources. Is a government which is responsive to it's citizens an inherently socialistic government?

Yes, if the responses are socialistic in nature, welfare, nationalized health care and other other such things. Its what much of Europe is these days.

So, Government of the people, by the people and for the people is socialism?

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

However, the conflict between capitalism and socialism has been largely settled for now. In terms of the 21st century, one of the central political issues (possibly the most important, now) is how can/should a government of the people deal with religious extremism and threats to it's citizens? A threat which has at its root, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I would also argue that the central political issue of our times is that of the individual vs the corporation and/or government. What does it mean to be a citizen, and who are governments beholden to, or should they be beholden to?

The Iraq war is not about socialism, but it could be construed to be about a war for capital resources. Is a government which is responsive to it's citizens an inherently socialistic government?

Yes, if the responses are socialistic in nature, welfare, nationalized health care and other other such things. Its what much of Europe is these days.

So, Government of the people, by the people and for the people is socialism?

Do you believe that the central political issue of Ayn Rand's time is still the central political issue of the 21st century?

Yes: What is the proper role of government? You can debate the pragmatic arguments about each economic and social program that both of the candidates offers and I will still start and end my debate with "Does the government have the moral and Constitutional authority to do this?"

However, the conflict between capitalism and socialism has been largely settled for now. In terms of the 21st century, one of the central political issues (possibly the most important, now) is how can/should a government of the people deal with religious extremism and threats to it's citizens? A threat which has at its root, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I would also argue that the central political issue of our times is that of the individual vs the corporation and/or government. What does it mean to be a citizen, and who are governments beholden to, or should they be beholden to?

The Iraq war is not about socialism, but it could be construed to be about a war for capital resources. Is a government which is responsive to it's citizens an inherently socialistic government?

Yes, if the responses are socialistic in nature, welfare, nationalized health care and other other such things. Its what much of Europe is these days.

So, Government of the people, by the people and for the people is socialism?

Actually, it predates democratic socialism and is one of the ideas which defines the United States.

I'm not really sure how you can make such as resolute statement that terrorism has nothing to do with capitalism. I (and others) would say the current defining way in how our country conducts itself is based on the concepts of capitalism. The way our country conducts itself is directly related to terrorism. Other countries have had to deal with the issue of terrorism for many years, and is certainly not new to the 21st century. It has perhaps evolved to something more significant, in that the 'war on terror' is moving from client states to the home bases and now nuclear powers are pulling out the guns, but again that's pretty much the cold war summed up. We'll just keep rolling the nuclear dice until snake eyes pop up I guess.

I definitly agree with the individual v corps though, but what you're getting very close to stating at that point is again capitalism v socialism (or rather the contrasting poles of gov't they represent), and has been an ongoing struggle since the industrial revolution. Wage laws etc were never handed out, they were fought for.

So if democratic socialism and the US share such a defining foundational idea, why is there such hostility towards socialism in most of america?

Because most people are selfish and greedy. People can invent reasons why they don't want socialism, but for most of them it is really come down to not wanting to pay more taxes to help some strangers.

Because most people are selfish and greedy. People can invent reasons why they don't want socialism, but for most of them it is really come down to not wanting to pay more taxes to help some strangers.

People don't want to pay more than their fair share to help strangers that should be capable of helping themselves, more accurately.

Only the very radical espouse a completely hands-off governmental approach, but there is a fundamental difference between government as a means to enforce a basic social contract, and government as a device for forcible redistribution of wealth to the end of an equality of living standard that fails to reward work, innovation, or self-sufficiency.